A REVELATION FOR ATHIESTS

[Bonky]

Luftwaffle, 

 

You said "In an earlier post you referred to atheists versed in philosophy and logic, in a way that seemed you also valued such things, so it's surprising to see you now take such a low view of proper philosophical definitions."

I think I actually used the term "non-believer", either way I was referring to people who are at least somewhat versed in philosophy and rational arguments. I didn't mean to imply that I'm well versed in logic or philosophy, I'm not.  I understand some basics but I'm by no means a philosopher.  

My understanding of the term "agnostic atheist" is this.  The first part says what you "know", the latter half says what you "believe".  We could verbalize the label by saying "I don't this for sure, but I don't believe any gods exist."   You sound like you are an Agnostic Theist [You believe but you aren't certain].   John Hagee would probably be a Gnostic Theist.  Again this is my understanding of the terms, I could be misinformed.

You said:

"You're misunderstanding my point. "Lacking belief" is not a claim about the way the world is, it's simply an autobiographical claim about the persons psychological state. As such, those claims do not offer anything to the conversation and cannot ever be challenged. 
My point is that this is so by design because it avoids shouldering a burden of proof.
Theism does make claims about the way the world is, so it's not the same thing."

Lacking belief is however a response to a claim.  An analogy would be a courtroom where you are asserting that God is guilty of existing.  Based on the presented evidence, I do NOT find him guilty of existing.   This may be frustrating for a theist, but then my solution is to not make hard claims about things we really know nothing or little about.  To be honest, I hardly reject the idea of a creator; it's when people start telling me a mountain of details about this alleged creator that I start to raise an eyebrow.

You said:

"I find this statement somewhat incredible, Bonky. How many Christians would disagree that God created the universe? That Jesus rose from the dead? That Jesus died on a cross for mankind's sin? That there is right or wrong? etc.
In fact C.S Lewis' book Mere Christianity is a book length attempt at captured precisely what the core commonalities in Chrisitanity are."

Yes I didn't mean to suggest that there aren't key points that most Christians agree on.  Ask 500 Christians what they believe about spirits, demons, angels, miracles and the like and we're all over the place.  I grew up in the 80s, you weren't allowed to have a Police tape sitting around as it might cause demons to start plaguing your home!  I think that era had a name for that, the Satanic Panic.   So I'll be more clear, there is NO specific Judeo-Christian view on the supernatural and the spirit world.  So someone from a primitive tribe may use the spirit world to explain almost everything.   I'm saying that a Christian who is not heavy into the spirit world is still committing the same error when they refer to the spirit world to explain a mystery.   One just does it more often.  

You said:

"My logic would have been flawed if I offered the instances where Christianity's claims were consistent with discovery as proof of Christianity, but I did not. In order to evaluate an idea one needs to look at both the positive and the negatives of the idea. I find many atheists will cherry what is negative about Christianity and completely ignore what is positive."

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by positive or negative.  I care about what's true.  What's true may be something terrible.  Even the parts of Christianity that doesn't sound "good" to me is irrelevant if it's actually true.  

Regarding Religulous, Bill Maher certainly interviewed some folks we'd consider out in left field but he started the film at a truck stop church!  They were average American christians getting together at a truck stop.  Nothing extreme about that.  I would say that there were quite a few folks he spoke to that are "every day" kind of people you'll find on the street [or people that have many followers etc].  

How do we know attacking certainty is worthwhile?  Given the context of our discussion I thought that was obvious.  There are tons of views about the nature/origin of our existence and they can't all be right!  They can all be wrong however.

I agree that there are atheists who are not very easy going on theists, but keep in mind; historically atheists are one of the most disliked/untrusted groups.   We're told often that we're going to burn in hell forever etc.  Wasn't it Cruz who recently said that if you don't start your day on your knees in prayer you don't deserve to be President?   

I think it's safe to say Christianity has components that are logically sound, but for me it's also about the "believability".   There are also components to me that come across as legendary [Christ]  some sections that just sound like ancient stories that were handed down through generations [flood].  There are also certainly accounts that sound completely believable and logical.  

One of my major stumbling blocks is trying to grasp that a God would resort to religious belief to commune with it's followers.  Knowing what we know of religion here it's not something you think someone would want to emulate or associate with.   I don't find it something to encourage or celebrate, it asks people to engage in a way of life that could be completely delusion and yet they wouldn't know the difference.  So after saying all that, I have very dear friends and family who are Christians.  I just have a hard time hearing people say things like "You know there's a God you just won't admit it" .  Anyway I have to get to bed now!

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Bonky,

Thank you for clarifying your understanding of "agnostic atheist" to me. Obviously, as I pointed out lexically atheist has nothing to do with belief, but assuming the "new atheist" definition, then I'm afraid it still seems redundant to me. Knowledge and belief goes hand in hand. So much so, that epistomologists will typically define knowledge as "justified true belief", sometimes called JTB for short.

The reason why knowledge and belief go together is because it's impossible to know something but not believe it. It would be irrational for me to know there's a tree by my front door, while believing otherwise.

To say that you don't know whether or not there's a god, but you believe there isn't a god, means that your belief is at the very least unjustified and at most contradictory to your knowledge.

I am not an agnostic theist. There is a difference between knowing and showing, and while I cannot prove God's existence, I have a personal awareness of God's existence and God's hand over my life for many years.
Frankly I don't think agnostic theist is a legitimate term for the same reasons as "agnostic atheist". One cannot know one thing and believe another.

The problem with your courtroom analogy is, in the courtroom situation the defence and the prosecution builds a case and argues for it and presents evidence. While atheist will of course write books, make movies, get paid royalty checks for their books and movies, many retreat to belief lacking whenever asked to justify their worldview. I wouldn't say this is frustrating, but like I said before it does come across as disingenuous, because there's such a difference between the atheist claim and the atheist behaviour in many cases.

"I'm saying that a Christian who is not heavy into the spirit world is still committing the same error when they refer to the spirit world to explain a mystery" - Bonky
I would say it depends on the argument. Arguments from design, contingency arguments and teleological arguments aren't mere superstitions, but generally appeal to known scientific evidence and reasons from that to a probable conclusion. Surely you can see that this isn't remotely the same  as the satanic panic of the 80s which was based on poor scriptural exegesis and what not. Again it seems you're making the same mistake as before: categorising anything supernatural together and dismissing the whole lot, instead to looking at the merits of each claim.

What I mean by "positive or negative" in terms of Christianity is the strengths and weaknesses of the worldview. Atheism and Christianity are both worldviews and both worldviews need to make sense of the world we live in. Both worldviews will have strengths and weaknesses and those will play a role in how one evaluates the truth of each.

A Christian equivalent of Bill Maher's movie would be if a moviemaker, selected atheists from your average YouTube comments section, Richard Dawkins' fan page, and pretty much anything that Bill Nye says about philosophy or religion and compiling it into a movie showing how stupid and arrogant atheists can be. There's a thing called the principle of charity, which says that one should engage with the best version of your opponent's case, not the worst. Bill Maher didn't. Can we agree that both sides have bad apples and they should stop?
Instead of following Richard Dawkins' advice and mocking and ridiculing I think what you and I are doing is best: Open and friendly reasoned discussion.

'I just have a hard time hearing people say things like "You know there's a God you just won't admit it".' - Bonky
I know you do which is why I am opposed to posting that in the seekers section. It stifles conversation instead of promoting it.

"One of my major stumbling blocks is trying to grasp that a God would resort to religious belief to commune with it's followers." - Bonky
This is a good question and one that has bothered me too in the past. I'd like to ignore loaded terms like "resort". I don't think God is "resorting" to religious belief. In fact I don't even think that religious belief is the thing by which God communes with us.
I find my own conscience is one way that God communes with me. When I mess up, it's there. I have experienced God's comfort many times in my life. Sometimes though God has felt distant in those times often last wrong and are hard, but I think those strengthen us. So I think there are many ways that God communes with us.

Now it seems your question is why God uses these subtle mechanisms and not something more direct, something tangible, like an audible voice and a bright light?
One theologian once said (I forgot the name) that God gave us enough light so that we can find our way, but enough darkness for those otherwise inclined. I don't think God wants robots, but wants people who freely trust in Him. I believe there is much stock in that line of reasoning.

Sometimes when you want people to show their true colours you need to let them believe you're not there. Perhaps it's something like that.

I think more can be said but this post is getting long. We'll talk more in the next round

[siegi91]

 

Hi Bonky,

Nice to see you again. I'd like to respond to two of your points if I may.

There's actually a very good reason that many folks believe an atheist is someone who says that God doesn't exist. It's because classically that's precisely what an atheist was. It was only with the rise of the so-called New Atheists, around the turn of the century, that the term "atheist" was redefined as meaning "lacking belief in a god".

The Latin itself shows this clearly, Latin after all is used by law, medical professionals and scientists because it's a very expressive language. Now you, or a group of atheists, can of course stipulatively define "atheist" to mean anything you like, but then you can't blame people for using the lexical definition, which is actually the standard.
According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "'Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God"
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Atheism is the view that there is no God."

The other thing is that many Christians, including myself, actually view the redefinition of "atheist" as somewhat disingenuous, because "lacking belief in a god" is an autobiographical statement that really says nothing, but it frees the atheist from any burden of proof. The atheist can now freely disagree with Christians, write blog posts, join atheist rallies, and even ridicule Christians, while never having to substantiate their beliefs because they can retreat to a position of "belief lacking" whenever it's convenient. In short it comes across as a sneaky loophole to avoid a burden of proof rather than a legitimate position.

Think about it this way: suppose Christians defined themselves as "lacking belief in a godless universe". "We're not making any claims, we simply lack belief."
Wouldn't atheists think that this is really just theism pulling a sneaky move to avoid having to justify theism? If nothing more, the autobiographical nature of the statement stifles discussion because it's impossible to disprove. It's like saying , "I feel lazy". How does one disprove such a claim?

Please don't think I'm questioning your intentions, rather I'm just hoping to clarify why many Christians view the redefinition of atheist as non-standard. Perhaps if you understand where we're coming from it'll alleviate some frustration.

I think one must be cautious when grouping disparate views into categories and then arguing against the category instead of the particular view. When you use the term "supernatural" it includes tribal gods, superstitions, pantheons of storm gods, ocean gods, volcano gods, faeries, dragons, ancestral spirits and a whole host of things that nobody here is actually promoting.

Christianity, through missions work, actually played a key role in dispelling pantheons, tribal gods and superstitions, so lumping all of that with what we believe in with that isn't entirely fair. You'll need to address our particular claim, which is the Judeo-Christian worldview not a general "supernaturalism".

So, lets looks at how many times in history Christianity's claims have been shown to be false by scientific discovery: how many do you know of off the top of your head?
You might think of "flat earth", but that's not a core Christian claim, it was actually an Aristotellian view that was wrongly adopted by the church. You might want to say Heliocentricity, but neither is that a core Christian claim, in fact Copernicus was himself a Christian and the bible no more claims heliocentricity than I do when I say, "sunrise" or "sunset".

Now we also need to look at how many times Christianity was right. In the 19th century and early 20th century most atheists believe the universe was eternal. This gave them a way out of having to explain its origin. Big Bang cosmology seems to side with Christianity that the universe has a beginning after all. Even Lawrence Krauss reckons if he had to bet, he'd bet the universe began to exist.

Christianity also claimed that all humans are related, and the Human Genome Project's findings are consistent with that view.

HI Luftwaffe, excuse my intrusion, but I would really like to ask you a question. Other Christians may answer as well, of course.

You mentioned that Christians were confirmed correct by some recent scientific discoveries. You mentioned the Human Genome Project and Big Bang cosmology (I presume). 

My question is: are you really sure that the the Bible has been independently confirmed? I am not entering in the merit of whether a certain claim matches with what science found. It could very well be that there is perfect match, somewhere. My question concerns the methodolgy used by science to come to truth statements: do you trust the methodology used by science to come to certain conclusions about the world?

I am not a biologist and it is not my intention to trigger an evolution debate, but I think it is true that the most, if not all, people working at the HGP accept the reliability of scientific procedurers towards showing that evolution is true.

But I am a physicist, so I am interested in your views about the origin of the Universe. I have no clue whether you are a YEC or not, but let's suppose you are. 

In this case: how can you trust anything coming from a methodology that causes mistakes about the age of the Universe in the ballpark of six orders of magnitude?

 sieglinde

 

 

 

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Sieglinde,

Good to hear from you again. I'm happy to try and answer your question as best I can. Generally I avoid scientific discussions so I guess my answer will reflect more of a philosophical approach than having people posting links to Talk Origins, Answers In Genesis and Reasons To Believe and getting agitated with each other.
I used to be a YEC, but I have become more open regarding such things in the last couple of years, now I'm just a plain creationist who doesn't know or care how old the earth is.
However I am still a creationist so there are some definitions of evolution that I reject.

So lets talk about that, because evolution is a slippery animal.

Some have defined evolution as change over time. This kind of evolution I accept. I totally agree that things change over time.
Some have defined evolution as changes in the frequency by which certain alleles appear in a genome. This is Dawkins' definition. That I accept too. I totally agree that alleles change.
I even agree that new species can arise as a result of mutation and natural selection, if by species you mean things that are no longer interfertile.

Where I disagree with evolution is where it is defined as universal common descent. I do not accept this definition of evolution and I don't believe the evidence leads one to conclude that this is so. I think this is an interpretation based on a very small set of evidence, but one can easily offer a creationist alternative covering the same evidence and with a different interpretation one will reach a different conclusion.

Let me clarify it like this.
What is the evidence? It's that things change over time and that many species share commonalities, both genetic and phenotypical (their physical features) This set of evidence is shared between creationists and evolutionists alike.

What interpretations can one draw from the evidence?
I think one interpretation is universal common descent from some RNA world or whatever.
I think another interpretation is that a Creator created the initial bodyplans and imbued the creatures with genetic diversity so that they could adapt to their environment on a small finch-beaks kind of level.

I don't believe the scientific method or the evidence favours either theory on the strength of the evidence alone.
Both interpretations have strengths and weaknesses.

I think the Creator theory explains not only the origin of the original genetic information, but is also the best explanation for why there's a universe to begin with, it explains our moral experiences, free will and rationality and the fine tuning of the universe. This theory has tremendous explanatory power and scope.

While universal common descent might explain why there are squirrels and tulips, it's pretty poor at explaining morality. And cosmology and teleology is out of it's reach, let alone free will and reason. So accepting the insane odds of evolution isn't enough, you also have the embarrassment of subjective morality, dreaming up multiverses and of course having to explain how you're responsible for your actions and rational in a fully deterministic world.

On the plus side though, it is naturalistic and science favours naturalistic explanations but ultimately we want explanatory power too. I think appealling to chance is just too weak an explanation. Also I think a creator far better explains the origin of the initial genetic information.

So in terms of why I accept the genome project but not universal common descent. I think the HGP's conclusion is modest enough and follows directly  from the evidence whereas I think universal common descent does not.

In terms of your question about the age of the universe. What YECs generally do is identify assumptions in the radioactive dating methods and dismiss the dating methods. In terms of other lines of reasoning such as starlight travel time, I believe the best explanation is that the actual Creation Ex-nihilo event may have created a reverse blackhole (a whitehole) which would have spewed matter and energy out of it. This event would have created an event horizon which would explain the startlight travel time problem.
This could be complete and utter rubbish. So too could Horizontal Gene Transfer and Dark Energy.
I simply wouldn't know. The point though is that YECs aren't dismissing the evidence but trying to come up with theories explaning it. I think this is a good thing, I'm just not qualified to evaluate it.

Old earth creationists will simply accept the general scientific interpretation, and say that the Genesis creation days aren't literal days or that the creation account is meant to be understood more poetically. They'll refer to the fact that the creation account refers to evening and morning on day 1 through 3 when the sun was only created on day 4. These arguments have merit, and in this instance again they're not dismissing the Biblical evidence, but trying to come up with an explanation.

So in both cases you have two sets of evidence: the words of the bible and the facts of nature. Both YECs and OECs accept the evidence, both accept the rules of Biblical Hermeneurics and both accept the scientic method, but they  offer differing interpretations based upon the evidence. YECs will assume the genre of Genesis as a literal historical account and work to incorporate the natural facts into their system. Old earthers will see Genesis as a poetic creation account, and thus square the words of the bible with the facts of nature.

Who is right? Who is wrong? Who are the better Christians? I can't say.

So in short neither YECs nor Evolutionists, nor OECs have a problem with the scientific method. The differences generally stem from the differing interpretations of the evidence.

I hope you don't have a headache after reading this

[Bonky]

Luftwaffle, 

 

You said:

"Thank you for clarifying your understanding of "agnostic atheist" to me. Obviously, as I pointed out lexically atheist has nothing to do with belief, but assuming the "new atheist" definition, then I'm afraid it still seems redundant to me. Knowledge and belief goes hand in hand. So much so, that epistomologists will typically define knowledge as "justified true belief", sometimes called JTB for short.

The reason why knowledge and belief go together is because it's impossible to know something but not believe it. It would be irrational for me to know there's a tree by my front door, while believing otherwise.

To say that you don't know whether or not there's a god, but you believe there isn't a god, means that your belief is at the very least unjustified and at most contradictory to your knowledge."

 

So what do you suggest doing when faced with a claim by someone that may or may not be true and you're not convinced?   I brought up the claims of alien and bigfoot encounters and I don't recall you addressing that.  Do you believe in alien abduction and bigfoot enounters?  If you do, how do you justify that?   If not, how do you justify that?  

Regarding atheistic and theistic world views they both try to make sense of our reality.  I don't think anyone has an airtight defense for their worldview.   I struggle making sense of things myself, I just don't happen to see how theism fixes those things.   You mentioned morality to Seigi and how naturalists struggle explaining that, how is the theist any better off?   The irony meter is broken every time I see a Christian gasp in horror at the hostility by the Muslims but when I challenge them on the old testament they OFTEN tell me "God created us he can do what he wants" or "God used the Israelites as a tool of judgment".   Euthyphro's dilemma also shows us that the theistic case for morality is not exactly air tight.  

"I find my own conscience is one way that God communes with me. When I mess up, it's there. I have experienced God's comfort many times in my life. Sometimes though God has felt distant in those times often last wrong and are hard, but I think those strengthen us. So I think there are many ways that God communes with us."

Wouldn't you agree though that it's a bit obvious that we humans are easy at deceiving ourselves?  I came from a Christian family, I'm no stranger to how Christians think.  We could all interpret things that happen in our lives as someone pulling levers behind the curtain and guiding our lives.   It's an entirely different thing to really know that our faith is well placed.  Notice people will pray to recover from an illness, but who's praying for the motorcyclist on the ground who's been decapitated?  How did nonsense like Mormonism and Scientology even take off?   So I hear what you're saying, I'm not saying the claims of Christianity are the same as every other religion but I have to be honest and admit that the end result is the same from my perspective.   I haven't been shown a mechanism or method to falsify or test to see if the claims are rooted in reality [specifically the spiritual claims].

 

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Bonky,

I'm sorry that I missed your point about BigFoot and UFOs. I try to keep the posts short-ish and try to select what I think are you salient points.

Lets suppose I make a movie called BigFoot-iculous where I compile selected footage of BigFoot-centred idiocy into a mockumentary. And write several books, including "The Big Foot Delusion", "Big Foot is not Great - How BigFoot belief poisons everything", "Letter to a BigFoot nation". Then as the royalty money rolls in, I pay for a bus advert campaign stating "There's probably no Big Foot, so stop taking blurry photos and enjoy your life". I pose proudly with donation cheques, sign fan T-Shirts and at a BFReason Rally I am the keynote speaker where I encourage the cheering crowd to mock and ridicule those believing in BigFoot.

Then one day a BigFoot supporter asks me, "Hey, man. Why are so you against Big Foot?" and I respond, "Dude, I'm not not against Big Foot. In fact I have no beliefs regarding Big Foot at all, I'm simply without Big Foot belief". Would that seem glaringly deceptive?

Now that is of course an extreme case, but even if I simply hovered around Big Foot forums contesting pretty much every statement they make, and reserving an extremely high standard of evidence in favour of the Big Foot idea, but lapping up anything I can find against the Big Foot idea, couldn't it still be said that even a slight bias against Big Foot is contrary to a claim of "belief lacking". Would it reveal that, in fact, such a person does have beliefs regarding the issue aftera ll?

This is why, if I didn't believe in God, I'd probably call myself an agnostic. If I thought I had a case against God, I'd call myself an atheist and argue the case. But I wouldn't call myself an agnostic atheist, and align myself with that which is against God, while at the same time claiming I have absolutely no beliefs regarding the matter.

In terms of my mentioning to Siegi about atheisms inability to ground moral values and duties: sure, I can understand that your irony meter will go off the charts. Afterall, most modern atheists consider themselves to be very moral indeed, often campaigning for gay-rights, pro-choice, sexual freedom, legalisation of controlled substances and less censureship, while the Christian hipocrites with their archaic sensibilities thump their Bibles. The same Bibles that describe a bunch of goat herders killing women and children in the name of YahWeh.
Am I more or less on track?

So, yeah I get that your irony meter is smoking and what I'm about to say will probably push you over the edge, because I know that your irony meter was calibrated by the Christian ethical standards which you take for granted and are arguing against. If atheism were true, there is nothing wrong with what was described in the Old Testament. Some chemical compounds arranged human-wise reacted with other chemical compounds in a different culture according to the deterministic laws of nature and that's just that. Like Dawkins said, "there's no good or evil, just blind pitiless indifference", or like Nietsche said, "now that we have killed God, who will hold us, the greatest of murderers accountable?"

So, from an atheist perspective you cannot actually say anything bad about what happened in Canaan. You can say it's inconsistent with Christianity, but you cannot say it's wrong, because atheism has no right or wrong, and this is something that you need to deal with.

But is it inconsistent with Christianity? Sure it's hard to read and hard to stomach and I don't want to brush over it like it's nothing. I owe you better than that.

But let me paint a picture for you:

You and I are both working as slaves in a Canaanite citadel. We're starved and hungry and beaten and bruised. you and I were originally from neighbouring villages, tending to our small pieces of land, making ends meet. But Canaanite soldiers attacked us because we weren't able to come up with the ever increasing tribute. The soldiers held us down while our wives were brutalised and their throats slit. Our infant children had their heads cracked open on rocks, others were simply left to starve or for the ants and jackals to devour like scraps of rubbish. Our older daughters were taken as temple prostitutes and or sacrificed in the flames of Molech's arms and here we are slaving in Canaan. Who knows if they're even alive.

At night when the cells are quiet you have often asked me how God could let the Canaanites get away with this. I've seen you in the next door cell shaking your fists at the sky, pleading for vengeange, pleading for death, pleading for and end. You have often said that you don't believe there's a God, because no God would allow this kind of thing to go on.

Then one day you hear the soldiers talking uneasily about a foreign force, a group of escaped slaves from Egypt who have been attacking Canaan, and giving the Canaanites precisely what they had done to so many tribes in their conquest. Taking from them their wives and children before their eyes like they have done to you and me, and our fathers and cousins.

Now I'm not saying that this is how it happened, but the Bible is clear that what happened to Canaan was a severe judgement on them and that God didn't act hastily in that matter. Now, the Bible is also pretty clear that the Old Testament is far from God's ideal for mankind. Many times Jesus repeats that the Law was because of the hardness of man's hearts and that a better Law is coming. One based on forgiveness and grace. Of neighbourly love, and virtue.

So while the Old Testament is hard, it's possible that there could have been moral justification for the events that took place there such that it's not inconsistent with Christianity.
Atheists however still need to deal with the moral grounding question.

In terms of Euthryphro's dilemma that you mentioned. It hasn't been considered a real dilemma by philosophers for decades. Atheist philosophers openly recognise that if morality is grounded in God's nature, then it neither transcends God, nor is it arbitrary.

[Bonky]

Luftwaffle I think i've identified something that is causing us some confusion and a bit of frustration.  We seem to be addressing two key things [or at least I am]:  A possible creator of our Universe and the Judeo Christian concept of this creator.   I have plenty of arguments and thoughts on the latter but less so on the former.   Consider the fact that we haven't really defined what we even mean by "god".   It's possible our Universe was created by something that doesn't give a rip about us worshiping it.  So when it comes to the question, why are we here?  Did some intelligence purposely create our Universe?  etc.  YES I'm stumped!  I don't know!  And neither does anybody else.   I have all kinds of views and opinions about the Bible and it's claims however.

I was hoping you would take my UFO/Bigfoot scenario a bit more seriously to help me understand where you are coming from.  You used it instead to try to parody what you see from atheists attacking faith.   I'm starting to conclude that you see the point I'm making and you're not wanting to admit that.  I want to see how you're different from me when you are given a similar scenario by someone else.  The reason why I chose UFO's and bigfoot is because those claims don't even deal with the supernatural and people are largely skeptical.  

Regarding morality, I think Shelly Kagan did a good job defending secular morality against William Lane Craig.  My strong suit isn't morality by any means but I think secular morality is grounded on some basic principles but are those principles approved of by a being higher than us?  No.   I think we see in nature that animals with higher IQ's and who have close knit social structures tend to exhibit behaviors that are similar to us in terms of reciprocation, empathy etc.  Like I said already, there are components of my own world view that I struggle to defend, morality would be one thing.   

You quoted Dawkins and ironically you quoted him out of context where he was criticizing your position.   Here's the quote you're referring to:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

I'm not familiar with the Nietzsche quote, to be honest I couldn't quickly find it to read more about it.

Your Canaanite story doesn't change the fact that some Muslims believe they are being told to be an instrument of justice to people who are offensive to their god.  Over and over and over again I've heard from Christians that we can't judge God, his ways are higher than ours.   It seems to me that these principles would work for any kind of god, one that we agree with and one we don't.    

I also don't understand this "hard heart" concept, start humanity off in an oppressive law riddled society and work our way to a "better way".   Not through humanity as a whole but a special group who had special laws that protected them but not others and later on we'll get to the "better way".   I can't say that these stories aren't true or that this can't be how a God would handle things, it would just shock me.    I have to run now but I'm enjoying the discussion.  

 

 

[LuftWaffle]

11 hours ago, Bonky said:

Luftwaffle I think I've identified something that is causing us some confusion and a bit of frustration.  We seem to be addressing two key things [or at least I am]:  A possible creator of our Universe and the Judeo Christian concept of this creator.   I have plenty of arguments and thoughts on the latter but less so on the former.   Consider the fact that we haven't really defined what we even mean by "god".   It's possible our Universe was created by something that doesn't give a rip about us worshiping it.  So when it comes to the question, why are we here?  Did some intelligence purposely create our Universe?  etc.  YES I'm stumped!  I don't know!  And neither does anybody else.   I have all kinds of views and opinions about the Bible and it's claims however.

Fair enough, but this is a different case. Arguments for theism aren't meant to be arguments for a specific theistic religion like Christianity. You cannot fault arguments for theism for not being arguments for Christianity too. The idea that "god" hasn't been defined seems to me like you've bought into something called Logical Positivism. It's the notion that things that cannot be empirically verified, or deductively proven are meaningless. Is this what you're getting at?

In terms of defining God, I believe in the God as described in the Bible. Surely that statement has meaning to you?
The God that's consistent with the "Moral Law Giver" of the moral argument, "The fine tuner" of the fine tuning argument, "The timeless, spaceless, immaterial, primary cause" of the cosmological argument, "The original designer" of the design argument and so on.
 

Quote

I was hoping you would take my UFO/Bigfoot scenario a bit more seriously to help me understand where you are coming from.  You used it instead to try to parody what you see from atheists attacking faith.   I'm starting to conclude that you see the point I'm making and you're not wanting to admit that.  I want to see how you're different from me when you are given a similar scenario by someone else.  The reason why I chose UFO's and bigfoot is because those claims don't even deal with the supernatural and people are largely skeptical.  

I'm sorry. I should have taken it more seriously, you're right. The fact of the matter is that I live in South Africa, where we simply do not care about Big Foot and as such I do not write books about it, and argue with Big Footers about it. I belaboured the point of atheist behaviour because I think it's very relevant.

In terms of my own beliefs regarding Big Foot. I believe it probably doesn't exist for the following reasons:

This is a physical being living in a limited physical space. As such the lack of biological evidence to me is conspicuously absent. So I think there's some positive case to be made against BF.
In terms of the evidence I have seen, those were blurry photos, a guy standing over a fake looking footprint and eye witness accounts. The photos could easily be a guy in a monkey suit deliberately obscured to hide the obvious. The footprint as I said looks fake although I'm not a footprint expert, but I can't image a creature who's feet brush away leaves on a leafy stretch of ground to reveal a clear dirt footprint.
The eyewitnesses could simply have made it up for sensationalism or attention of whatever. I'm sure you're going to now respond with how this is parallel to my belief in God, right?

I think that the philosophical arguments for God, provide a reasonable case for the necessity of God in explaining our world.
In terms of the eye-witnesses for Jesus, I think the fact that they were willing to die at least shows that they were utterly convinced that they saw the risen Jesus.

Quote

Regarding morality, I think Shelly Kagan did a good job defending secular morality against William Lane Craig.

I'm not familiar with her or her claims. I see there's a discussion on YouTube. I'll check it out and let you know what I think. In the meantime what's your view on morality?

Quote

You quoted Dawkins and ironically you quoted him out of context where he was criticizing your position.   Here's the quote you're referring to:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

I'm not really seeing where I quoted Dawkins out of context? What's the difference between saying that the universe has the properties of "no evil, no good" and saying "there is no evil, no good in the universe"?

Quote

I'm not familiar with the Nietzsche quote, to be honest I couldn't quickly find it to read more about it.

The Nietzsche quote is from his parable called the "Mad Man". https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nietzsche-madman.asp

I guess I shouldn't have put paraphrasings in quotes, but these quotes are familiar to many so I figured you'd get the gist of it.

Quote

Your Canaanite story doesn't change the fact that some Muslims believe they are being told to be an instrument of justice to people who are offensive to their god.  Over and over and over again I've heard from Christians that we can't judge God, his ways are higher than ours.   It seems to me that these principles would work for any kind of god, one that we agree with and one we don't.

I don't believe God is morally ambiguous so I certainly won't fly the "We can't judge God" line. Sure Muslims can claim the same thing and one would need to take their claims on the merits. Are you arguing that Christians don't have a right to denounce Muslim attacks because of Canaan? Aren't you assuming that both cases are equal? What if Canaan really was a judgement by God, whereas Muslim terrorism are cases of misguided terrorism?
Alternatively if you're going to argue that the Israelites made up the whole judgement of God story, well then I guess Canaan is no longer a problem that Christians need to account for. 

Quote

I also don't understand this "hard heart" concept, start humanity off in an oppressive law riddled society and work our way to a "better way".   Not through humanity as a whole but a special group who had special laws that protected them but not others and later on we'll get to the "better way".   I can't say that these stories aren't true or that this can't be how a God would handle things, it would just shock me. 

Well think about it: If you wanted to bring Western moral reform to the Middle East. Do you think you're just going to change their laws to Western Laws overnight and the next day, it's going to be Drive-Ins, mini skirts and Rock n Roll? Social change takes time.

While the Law of Moses looks brutal to us, during it's time it was a huge step in the right direction. I've read somewhere that a historian can draw a direct line from Sinai to the civilisation of the West. A systematic change of the human heart step by painful step. The Bible is very clear that the Law of Moses wasn't intended to be a perfect utopian system, but to introduce the perfect system, which is what Jesus brought about. If you want to take on Christian morality, you have to deal with Jesus and not just cherry-pick certain Old Testament laws and descriptions of events, thus casting the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote

 I have to run now but I'm enjoying the discussion.  

I'm enjoying our conversation too, but it is taking quite a bit of time out of my work day, so I'm probably going to take a break from posting for a bit. My last couple of posts were rushed as you could tell and it's not fair to you, but I think we've covered a lot and we both know a little more about each other.

Until we chat again, God Bless you my friend.

[Bonky]

Howdy Luftwaffle,

 

You said

"Fair enough, but this is a different case. Arguments for theism aren't meant to be arguments for a specific theistic religion like Christianity. You cannot fault arguments for theism for not being arguments for Christianity too. The idea that "god" hasn't been defined seems to me like you've bought into something called Logical Positivism. It's the notion that things that cannot be empirically verified, or deductively proven are meaningless. Is this what you're getting at?"

Right and I guess arguments for a creator aren't necessarily theistic at all.   What I mean about defining "god" I mean what qualifies as "god"?  Anything that was responsible for the creation of our Universe?  Could our Universe be caused by something and it wouldn't necessarily be a "god"?  

"In terms of defining God, I believe in the God as described in the Bible. Surely that statement has meaning to you?
The God that's consistent with the "Moral Law Giver" of the moral argument, "The fine tuner" of the fine tuning argument, "The timeless, spaceless, immaterial, primary cause" of the cosmological argument, "The original designer" of the design argument and so on."

This is fine, what I don't know is if this being that you're describing is the only explanation.  I find the mutliverse hypothesis to be on par with the one you offer, both take a leap of faith.

"I think that the philosophical arguments for God, provide a reasonable case for the necessity of God in explaining our world.
In terms of the eye-witnesses for Jesus, I think the fact that they were willing to die at least shows that they were utterly convinced that they saw the risen Jesus."

The point I think I'm trying to make with that analogy is that when it comes to aliens or bigfoot, we're open to believe it or not believe it...no big deal.  You're allowed to say "I don't know".  Early in our discussion you weren't satisfied with my stance that I'm not convinced but I'm open to the possibilities.

"I'm not really seeing where I quoted Dawkins out of context? What's the difference between saying that the universe has the properties of "no evil, no good" and saying "there is no evil, no good in the universe?"

Because in context Dawkins was speaking against the claims that this Universe was created by a loving father figure God.    

"Are you arguing that Christians don't have a right to denounce Muslim attacks because of Canaan? Aren't you assuming that both cases are equal? What if Canaan really was a judgement by God, whereas Muslim terrorism are cases of misguided terrorism?"

I'm saying it's ironic when they denounce them yes.  I'm not even suggesting that the Christian God is anything like that of the Muslims.  I'm saying that the same principles [defenses] that I hear from Christians about their God can be applied to any God.  

"While the Law of Moses looks brutal to us, during it's time it was a huge step in the right direction. I've read somewhere that a historian can draw a direct line from Sinai to the civilisation of the West. A systematic change of the human heart step by painful step. The Bible is very clear that the Law of Moses wasn't intended to be a perfect utopian system, but to introduce the perfect system, which is what Jesus brought about. If you want to take on Christian morality, you have to deal with Jesus and not just cherry-pick certain Old Testament laws and descriptions of events, thus casting the baby out with the bathwater."

Didn't God start things off in a garden with two people?  If God felt that he had to bring humanity back from a brutal way of life why would he let it get there to begin with?  God also had edicts that if broken people were stoned to death, so it's not like he wasn't able to be firm.  Does it not make you wonder that the Israelites were only to be slaves for 7 years but non-jews were allowed to be enslaved indefinitely?  

Regarding Jesus, didn't the trinity exist in the old testament?  Jesus spoke of a place of eternal torment for non-believers.  Which brings up another moment when defend the concept of hell, they defend a God who sounds pretty horrible to me.  So yes when I see Christians appalled at Muslims I can't help but feel irony.  Although I do recognize that there are plenty of Christians that believe the non-believing soul is destroyed at death.  

[FresnoJoe]

On 4/11/2016 at 4:18 PM, Bonky said:

Wouldn't you agree though that it's a bit obvious....
that we humans are easy at deceiving ourselves.... 
I came from a Christian family....
I'm no stranger to how....
Christians think....

How We Think

How About You?

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Hebrews 12:1

Love, Joe